NationStates Jolt Archive

For a moment, I thought it was a Tory, but I was wrong.

Kind of hard to tell the difference nowadays, I suppose.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7828121.stm

Apparently, he doesn't believe that dyslexia is real. Do you?

I believe it's real - not sure if we have a good grasp of how many are actually affected, but it's real enough.

on, Dyslexia si ton eral

Politician in "doesn't know what he's talking about" shock!

Dyslexia is real. So is stupidity. :p

yep, that politician is being a jackass

It is a real condition.

I think he makes a good point about teaching methods, but oversteps significantly in deciding that dyslexia is a myth.

I've grown up in a country with a strictly phonetic writing system, and I have never even heard of such a thing as dyslexia until I moved to the UK. Obviously I'm no brain surgeon, but given that the "condition" does not seem to occur anywhere with a logical writing system with one-to-one sound/symbol pairs, I believe that it is a reflection of the shortcomings of the writing system, rather than of the children diagnosed with it. To be honest, the only reason why I can spell in English is because I relate written words with how they sound through a filter of how they would sound in my native language, and remember the exceptions - I can see why without such an external crutch, some people have problems with relating sounds to written words.

As to why everyone else seems to be able to spell, it might be the case that their memories function by taking written words as whole symbols rather than an aggregate of symbols like those with phonetic systems/dyslexics (an indication for this seems to be that we read one word at a time, as per the exercise where only the first and last letter of the words in a sentence/paragraph are maintained in place and every other letter has its order changed), or that they have a similar filter to that I use, but do not realise it.

That is not to say that I am certain that dyslexia isn't real, but rather that it appears to me not to be.

Yes, it is real. A friend of mine is severely dyslexic with letters, but is otherwise very intelligent and reads musical notation with no problems at all.

Dyslexia is quite real.
Except on the internet, where people tend to overly use it as an xceuse ot wirte wiht lts ov Erroz.

Yes, it is real. A friend of mine is severely dyslexic with letters, but is otherwise very intelligent and reads musical notation with no problems at all.

This^.

People must also stop equating being dyslexic with being stupid. Dyslexic children only have problems in reading and writing, but other than that they have bright minds and are able to learn.

I can appreciate, and identify with, the sentiments behind his comments; that far too many are diagnosed with dyslexia because Mummy and Daddy can't accept their child suffers from an attack of the stupids, or because its easier than attempting to teach a difficult nd unintelligent child. I doubt one tenth of the population suffers from dyslexia to the extent that it impinges in any great way on their daily lives.

However, it certainly does exist, and I feel fo those who are genuine sufferers and have their condition devalued and derided due to the multiplicity of false or borderline cases diagnosed as a sop for their failure.

Oh, and yes, the British education is shit. It couldn't teach a drunk to piss himself.

So this guy thinks that every dyslectic is illiterate.
Probably also thinks everyone with glasses is blind, and everyone with false teeth is an overgrown baby... or sumfn... :tongue:

I've grown up in a country with a strictly phonetic writing system, and I have never even heard of such a thing as dyslexia until I moved to the UK. Obviously I'm no brain surgeon, but given that the "condition" does not seem to occur anywhere with a logical writing system with one-to-one sound/symbol pairs, I believe that it is a reflection of the shortcomings of the writing system, rather than of the children diagnosed with it. To be honest, the only reason why I can spell in English is because I relate written words with how they sound through a filter of how they would sound in my native language, and remember the exceptions - I can see why without such an external crutch, some people have problems with relating sounds to written words.

As to why everyone else seems to be able to spell, it might be the case that their memories function by taking written words as whole symbols rather than an aggregate of symbols like those with phonetic systems/dyslexics (an indication for this seems to be that we read one word at a time, as per the exercise where only the first and last letter of the words in a sentence/paragraph are maintained in place and every other letter has its order changed), or that they have a similar filter to that I use, but do not realise it.

That is not to say that I am certain that dyslexia isn't real, but rather that it appears to me not to be.

Yes dyslexcia is real. English is not an easy langue to learn the rules of it seems twisted and odd. Of course phonetic spelling or any phonetic langues is going to be easyer to learn, easpecialy for those who suffer with dyslexcia, as spelling phoneticlay is often one of the great mistakes we make when trying to write English.

I've grown up in a country with a strictly phonetic writing system, and I have never even heard of such a thing as dyslexia until I moved to the UK. Obviously I'm no brain surgeon, but given that the "condition" does not seem to occur anywhere with a logical writing system with one-to-one sound/symbol pairs, I believe that it is a reflection of the shortcomings of the writing system, rather than of the children diagnosed with it. To be honest, the only reason why I can spell in English is because I relate written words with how they sound through a filter of how they would sound in my native language, and remember the exceptions - I can see why without such an external crutch, some people have problems with relating sounds to written words.

As to why everyone else seems to be able to spell, it might be the case that their memories function by taking written words as whole symbols rather than an aggregate of symbols like those with phonetic systems/dyslexics (an indication for this seems to be that we read one word at a time, as per the exercise where only the first and last letter of the words in a sentence/paragraph are maintained in place and every other letter has its order changed), or that they have a similar filter to that I use, but do not realise it.

That is not to say that I am certain that dyslexia isn't real, but rather that it appears to me not to be.

I am forced by reason to agree with this. How are the dyslexia rates in France, Spain, Germany, China, Japan, and other industrialized nations compared with the US and UK? Let's also compare the incentives (am I correct in reading that the UK actually gives money to some dyslexics?) and healthcare systems of those and other nations. I think the MP is on to something when he uses the phrase "dyslexia industry". If there were no money in supporting this disorder, I'll wager it wouldn't have nearly the prevalence that it does in the US/UK.

As a teacher, the last thing I want to do is lay blame on students (and I spend a great deal of time going over my own methods and student evaluations), but when the MP says that one location in England has all but eliminated dyslexia using the phonics teaching method he specified, it does make me wonder. If ADD can be over diagnosed, why not dyslexia?

I do not doubt that such a condition exists, however it does seem like it can be used as a crutch in many situations. The MP may have been unnecessarily brusque or belligerent in stating his case, but it seems like there's a legitimate concern there.

Yes dyslexcia is real. English is not an easy langue to learn the rules of it seems twisted and odd. Of course phonetic spelling or any phonetic langues is going to be easyer to learn, easpecialy for those who suffer with dyslexcia, as spelling phoneticlay is often one of the great mistakes we make when trying to write English.

So wait -- because the language is difficult, that means that there's a disorder in the mind of the child who's having difficulty?

Seems to me that the approach to teaching the difficult language is what needs examination, not the brains of those trying to figure it out.

So this guy thinks that every dyslectic is illiterate.
Probably also thinks everyone with glasses is blind, and everyone with false teeth is an overgrown baby... or sumfn... :tongue:

Except that he never said that.

This^.

People must also stop equating being dyslexic with being stupid. Dyslexic children only have problems in reading and writing, but other than that they have bright minds and are able to learn.

Indeed, my self and both of my childen are dyslexic to some degree or other. My oldest child copes very well which leads me to belive that his specific learning difficultis are not as pronounced as my own or my youngest.

Dyslexcia as I have said here in the past, is basicaly a brain fault, our brains misinturpret what we see written down, and when we try to write down what we are thinking it comes out scrambled, but looks fine to us.

I'm 40 years old now, and have had the condition all of my life, but only found but just as I was leaving school.

What we tend to do is find suitible copeing mechanisms, and of course as each of us suffer in diffeant ways, we need to find differant methoeds to make sure that we can read and write.

You'll notice in all of my posts spelling mistakes, transposed letters, missing letters. Its hard to describe really, but when I proof read what I have written(as I must do every time) it does look right to me.

Its a strange condition to have, and I often wonder what effect it has had on my thought processes, on the way my logic works(heh or not), it seems as well that I am adept at spotting patterns in things, but I'm not sure wheter or not my dyslexic brain is responsible for that one.

Except that he never said that.

Quote from the article:

"If dyslexia really existed then countries as diverse as Nicaragua and South Korea would not have been able to achieve literacy rates of nearly 100%."

I.e., someone with dyslexia must be illiterate, as having dyslectics around apparently stands in the way of reaching a 100% literacy rate.

I am forced by reason to agree with this. How are the dyslexia rates in France, Spain, Germany, China, Japan, and other industrialized nations compared with the US and UK? Let's also compare the incentives (am I correct in reading that the UK actually gives money to some dyslexics?) and healthcare systems of those and other nations. I think the MP is on to something when he uses the phrase "dyslexia industry". If there were no money in supporting this disorder, I'll wager it wouldn't have nearly the prevalence that it does in the US/UK.

As a teacher, the last thing I want to do is lay blame on students (and I spend a great deal of time going over my own methods and student evaluations), but when the MP says that one location in England has all but eliminated dyslexia using the phonics teaching method he specified, it does make me wonder. If ADD can be over diagnosed, why not dyslexia?

I do not doubt that such a condition exists, however it does seem like it can be used as a crutch in many situations. The MP may have been unnecessarily brusque or belligerent in stating his case, but it seems like there's a legitimate concern there.

Actulay as a dyslexic father with dyslexic children living in Britian, I can tell you that it is very hard to get help.

There exsits a thing called a statement of specific learning dificulties(an umberalla term for dyslexcia) but it is very, very hard to get 'statemented'. It is only those that have been 'statemented' that are legible for the extra cash given from the goverement to the specific school in order to pay for extra help(one on one support or a scribe to help write in exams ect..)

In fact neither of my boys managed to get statemented which in book is an absolute travasty, yes schooling in the UK is a bit shit.

So wait -- because the language is difficult, that means that there's a disorder in the mind of the child who's having difficulty?

Seems to me that the approach to teaching the difficult language is what needs examination, not the brains of those trying to figure it out.

No thats not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that for people who suffer from dyslexcia, it is better for our education if our languae was phonetic. It is not, Amercian English is better to learn for dyslexic people than UK English. We can cope with phonetics, as that is one of the methoeds that we emplioy to aid us in with our problem.

So of course, if the national language is written phoneticlay I would expect many dyslexic people to slip under the radar and their problems not be reconised as such.

Quote from the article:

"If dyslexia really existed then countries as diverse as Nicaragua and South Korea would not have been able to achieve literacy rates of nearly 100%."

I.e., someone with dyslexia must be illiterate, as having dyslectics around apparently stands in the way of reaching a 100% literacy rate.

How does that equate to him calling dyslexics illiterate? I think you're confusing the pejorative sense of that word with the literal definition. It's a legitimate question. If other nations, with far less money overall than the UK, can achieve 100% literacy, and there's less of a PC movement in those places than in the UK, where they're apparently willing to bend over way too far to assist students with labels instead of re-evaluating the method of education -- how is that necessarily wrong? The literacy rate is a reasonably objective measure of how many can read at functional levels. If someone cannot read, they're illiterate, regardless of why.

Now, if you can show that the MP was being cruel by using the correct term for not being able to read, and the rates of such in various nations, I'd agree with your taking offense.

No thats not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that for people who suffer from dyslexcia, it is better for our education if our languae was phonetic. It is not, Amercian English is better to learn for dyslexic people than UK English. We can cope with phonetics, as that is one of the methoeds that we emplioy to aid us in with our problem.

So of course, if the national language is written phoneticlay I would expect many dyslexic people to slip under the radar and their problems not be reconised as such.

Funny, but that's what the MP is saying. Also, I'd like to know how US English is any easier than UK English.

Peeps, I've read a lot of your posts in my time, and I hate to point it out 'cause it makes me look like a shit, but it appears that you're exaggerating your typos in order to make a point in this thread. I've never seen this many from you, and I never knew you were dyslexic. Now, there might be some reason for it, such as discussing the condition brings it out, and I hope that's the case. 'Cause if it's not -- wow.

Dyslexics of the world, untie! You have nothing to lose but your china!

Yes its Real and have my SEN Statement to prove it

So wait -- because the language is difficult, that means that there's a disorder in the mind of the child who's having difficulty?

Why does the child have far more difficulty than the overwhelming majority of its peers, despite it not being less intelligent ?

Dyslexics of the world, untie! You have nothing to lose but your china!

Beware though - dyslexic devil worshippers sell their souls to santa !

Funny, but that's what the MP is saying. Also, I'd like to know how US English is any easier than UK English.

Peeps, I've read a lot of your posts in my time, and I hate to point it out 'cause it makes me look like a shit, but it appears that you're exaggerating your typos in order to make a point in this thread. I've never seen this many from you, and I never knew you were dyslexic. Now, there might be some reason for it, such as discussing the condition brings it out, and I hope that's the case. 'Cause if it's not -- wow.

You know Int, As I say I am 40 years old now, I was undiagnosed untill I was just leaving school. I grew up with my teachers, my parents and my peers telling me everyday to buck my ideas up, knuckle down, just get on with the work, don't be so stupid.

As a kid that hurt a lot, and belive me it took many, many, years to start to belive that in fact I have a great intelect, that I am not stupid, that in fact I am more intelegent than many people belive me to be.

But you know what, I still can't really spell great(it's gotten better and keeps getting better the more I do it), I still have problems with communicating exactly what is in my head(and ultimatly that is what dyslexcia is all about) I am still hard to understand quite offten.

But let me take your points.

American English is easyer to get to grips with than UK English because is is phonetic. How do you spell colour, for example?

Yes I may have made more mistake in my posts just now, that is because it is Thursday, I'm at work and Thursday after work the managment put alcohol and nibbles out for us(I work for a media company) so I have already had three beers!:D


As for the many posts of mine you have read, I hope that you reconise an intelgence, a way of seeing things that uses the logical process(yes yes, even my relgiousity), but I bet you'll still find spelling mistake, grammatical mistakes, transposed and missing letters, and aparrent garbledness in many of them. Ohh and what does bring it out is anger, you watch for that, if somebody is giving me a right good ribbing in here you'll notice my spelling go for a burton.

Beware though - dyslexic devil worshippers sell their souls to santa !

Hehe one of my admitedly ex-friends is a Satanist, and in his kitchen he had white board with the words 'Hail Satan' written on it.

I changed it to 'Hail Santa' and he kicked me out of his house!:D

Leela: You know, Zapp, someone ought to teach you a lesson.
Zapp: If it's a lesson in love, watch out; I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What do I call it, Kif?
Kif: [sighs] "Sex-lexia".

Why does the child have far more difficulty than the overwhelming majority of its peers, despite it not being less intelligent ?

Which child are you talking about? Also, how do we know who is more or less intelligent? If the language is the problem, the teaching method needs to be addressed, not the student. The article claimed that one district has virtually eliminated dyslexia by using some specific phonetic istruction method. If that's true, it would seem to give the lie to many dyslexia diagnoses.

You know Int, As I say I am 40 years old now, I was undiagnosed untill I was just leaving school. I grew up with my teachers, my parents and my peers telling me everyday to buck my ideas up, knuckle down, just get on with the work, don't be so stupid.

As a kid that hurt a lot, and belive me it took many, many, years to start to belive that in fact I have a great intelect, that I am not stupid, that in fact I am more intelegent than many people belive me to be.

But you know what, I still can't really spell great(it's gotten better and keeps getting better the more I do it), I still have problems with communicating exactly what is in my head(and ultimatly that is what dyslexcia is all about) I am still hard to understand quite offten.

But let me take your points.

American English is easyer to get to grips with than UK English because is is phonetic. How do you spell colour, for example?

Yes I may have made more mistake in my posts just now, that is because it is Thursday, I'm at work and Thursday after work the managment put alcohol and nibbles out for us(I work for a media company) so I have already had three beers!:D


As for the many posts of mine you have read, I hope that you reconise an intelgence, a way of seeing things that uses the logical process(yes yes, even my relgiousity), but I bet you'll still find spelling mistake, grammatical mistakes, transposed and missing letters, and aparrent garbledness in many of them. Ohh and what does bring it out is anger, you watch for that, if somebody is giving me a right good ribbing in here you'll notice my spelling go for a burton.

I have never doubted your intelligence. Thanks for the primer on what exacerbates your usual mild range of typos.

Which child are you talking about? Also, how do we know who is more or less intelligent? If the language is the problem, the teaching method needs to be addressed, not the student. The article claimed that one district has virtually eliminated dyslexia by using some specific phonetic istruction method. If that's true, it would seem to give the lie to many dyslexia diagnoses.

Not quite true though. Dyslexcia as far as we know at the moment can not be cured. Yes I agree better teaching methodes would give dyslexic children better chances, but it would not make then non dyslexic.

Like colour blindness. There is just no way that a colour blind man would ever see green as green or blue as blue. He may have been taught that what he see's as green others see as blue, he may then be able to menatly check himself and say 'yeah that's blue' when he actualy see's green, but he is still colour blind.

Fun fact: Hapurhey (his area) is the most deprived suburb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/3691761.stm) in england.

Beware though - dyslexic devil worshippers sell their souls to santa !And they don't believe in Dog!

Not quite true though. Dyslexcia as far as we know at the moment can not be cured. Yes I agree better teaching methodes would give dyslexic children better chances, but it would not make then non dyslexic.

Like colour blindness. There is just no way that a colour blind man would ever see green as green or blue as blue. He may have been taught that what he see's as green others see as blue, he may then be able to menatly check himself and say 'yeah that's blue' when he actualy see's green, but he is still colour blind.

I never said there was a cure, at least not for those who are genuinely dyslexic. I'm acquainted well enough with human nature to know, however, that if you offer many people a crutch, they'll take it.

Functioning through re-training oneself to "see" colors one cannot is as close to a cure for colorblindness as is possible now. However, if one learns to read via a better phonetic approach to English, it won't cure dyslexia, but it will certainly minimize its effect. Basically making the student a functioning student with dyslexia, and therefore literate.

I have a friend who's a top-notch physics student, and no small fan of literature. Among the top ten smartest people I've met, at a more than decent engineering school. He takes about three times longer to read something than anyone else I know, even (especially?) when in a hurry. I think dyslexia is definitely real in the sense that:

A) It is impossible to read English at a "normal" pace without resorting to having a database of "whole words" as well as a phonetic dictionary.

B) Some people are incapable of creating whole word mental dictionaries.

Contrast this with myself. I have never read English phonetically. I taught myself to read when I was 2 by memorizing the books my parents read to me, then associating the words on the page to the story I had memorized. It was after starting this process that I apparently figured out which sounds went with which letters.

The result? I went to a GT school, while my about-as-intelligent dyslexic friend was thought to be "mentally challenged" and put in a Special Ed program until middle school. Sometimes, life isn't fair.

I never said there was a cure, at least not for those who are genuinely dyslexic. I'm acquainted well enough with human nature to know, however, that if you offer many people a crutch, they'll take it.

Functioning through re-training oneself to "see" colors one cannot is as close to a cure for colorblindness as is possible now. However, if one learns to read via a better phonetic approach to English, it won't cure dyslexia, but it will certainly minimize its effect. Basically making the student a functioning student with dyslexia, and therefore literate.

Ohh yeah yeah I agree, completely . I have two sons both dyslexic one worse then the other. The oldest one, he has an astounding intelect, he finds understanding new things very easy(even if he can't quite communicate that so well) but he treis hard, he knows that he is at a disability, and he realises that he needs to work harder then his peers.

The yougest one though, well admitedly his dyslexcia is worse, but at the age of 13 it seems he is already using it as an excuse not to try as hard, when really he needs to try harder then the rest.

Heh the words me and him have, I'm not too worried though as he is around the same sort of stage I was at, at his age.

I wish that it was possible for a non dyslexic to step into the dyslexic brain for a while, heh to see what it is like. As I say it is hard to describe.

Lets try this way though.

Imagine that you have inside your head a music, that you hear clearly an consiscely everyday, it is possibly the greatest piece of music ever composed. But you are unable to learn, or retain even the most simplist of musical theory or notation, there is no way for you to share the music in your head with the rest of the world. Every attempt you make comes out wrong, you can clearly see in your minds eye what you need to put down, but you just can't translate it onto the page.

That is dyslexcia. Heh can you imagine how frustrating that is?

I have a dyslexic sibling. It isn't a psychological issue or a crutch issue. It's a real neurological disorder.

I have a dyslexic sibling. It isn't a psychological issue or a crutch issue. It's a real neurological disorder.

Yes it is!:D

Ohh yeah yeah I agree, completely . I have two sons both dyslexic one worse then the other. The oldest one, he has an astounding intelect, he finds understanding new things very easy(even if he can't quite communicate that so well) but he treis hard, he knows that he is at a disability, and he realises that he needs to work harder then his peers.

The yougest one though, well admitedly his dyslexcia is worse, but at the age of 13 it seems he is already using it as an excuse not to try as hard, when really he needs to try harder then the rest.

Heh the words me and him have, I'm not too worried though as he is around the same sort of stage I was at, at his age.

I wish that it was possible for a non dyslexic to step into the dyslexic brain for a while, heh to see what it is like. As I say it is hard to describe.

Lets try this way though.

Imagine that you have inside your head a music, that you hear clearly an consiscely everyday, it is possibly the greatest piece of music ever composed. But you are unable to learn, or retain even the most simplist of musical theory or notation, there is no way for you to share the music in your head with the rest of the world. Every attempt you make comes out wrong, you can clearly see in your minds eye what you need to put down, but you just can't translate it onto the page.

That is dyslexcia. Heh can you imagine how frustrating that is?

Yes. I can also imagine that the correct instruction, not necessarily in music manuscript, but perhaps in elementary piano (for example), can unlock that music.

*shrug* Correct instruction can give you a dog that writes calligraphy, as near as I can tell...

I have a dyslexic sibling. It isn't a psychological issue or a crutch issue. It's a real neurological disorder.

Why are two mutually exclusive?

Why are two mutually exclusive?

Which two? Psychological and neurological, or crutch and neurological?

The DNA is going to picket Graham Stringer's house. What's the DNA, you ask? That's the National Dyslexic Association.

Which two? Psychological and neurological, or crutch and neurological?

The two alternative interpretations; genuine condition, or artificial condition. Pedant.

The two alternative interpretations; genuine condition, or artificial condition. Pedant.

I don't think someone like you is allowed to use 'pedant' so crossly. :p

Also, your statement seems too obvious for me to be understanding properly. Some people are and others, not so much? Well, duh.

I don't think someone like you is allowed to use 'pedant' so crossly. :p

Also, your statement seems too obvious for me to be understanding properly. Some people are and others, not so much? Well, duh.

Take it on immediate reading; I was responding to Mr. Angry who claimed the two propositions were mutually exclusive.

And I am not pedantic. Ever. Much.:wink:

I has it. Me no typie good.

;)







But actuall, I really am dyslexic.

Dyslexia != inability to read. It is a real condition.

Oh, and yes, the British education is shit.

The British education system is a perfect real world example of 'you get out of it what you put in'. People who put in a little effort do pretty well by it. People who don't put in any effort tend to be less successful from it, and spend the rest of their lives bitching about how they were 'failed' by it.

The British education system is a perfect real world example of 'you get out of it what you put in'. People who put in a little effort do pretty well by it. People who don't put in any effort tend to be less successful from it, and spend the rest of their lives bitching about how they were 'failed' by it.

There's a different system? :confused:

I was told I was dyslexic once, a long time ago. My handwriting is shit, but I can't think of anything else that would make me dyslexic. Do I post like a dyslexic?

The British education system is a perfect real world example of 'you get out of it what you put in'. People who put in a little effort do pretty well by it. People who don't put in any effort tend to be less successful from it, and spend the rest of their lives bitching about how they were 'failed' by it.

If you say so. Having experienced it's full horror personally, and from the top percentiles both of school and student, I'd suggest instead it's excellent evidence for why one should not replace Oxbridge professors with comprehensive school teachers as the heads of exam boards, or devalue grades so as to then claim the average school leaver is ten times better educated than they were a decade previous.

It is, regrettably, unacademic both in content and aspiration, with the resuls manifestly obvious in the standard of the average undergraduate.

Of course dyslexia is a real condition.

Dyslexia is quite real, but it is true that some sucky teachers often blame their poor results on the kids.

Anyway, from the article in the OP:

"The education establishment, rather than admit that their eclectic and incomplete methods for instruction are at fault, have invented a brain disorder called dyslexia," said the MP.
My arse. The education "establishment" didn't invent dyslexia.

"If dyslexia really existed then countries as diverse as Nicaragua and South Korea would not have been able to achieve literacy rates of nearly 100%. There can be no rational reason why this 'brain disorder' is of epidemic proportions in Britain but does not appear in South Korea or Nicaragua."
Yep, there is no reason why South Koreans should have a lower percentage of dyslexia, but it's hard to make comparisons between the English language (written in Latin) and the Korean language (written in Korean), as they're completely different languages, completely different writings, and completely different relationships between speech and writing.
Also, maybe in Nicaragua (quite a poor country iirc) there is no way of diagnosing dyslexia.

Overall, I'd say the MP is a total moron. I hope that his constituency sends him home at the next elections.

Doesn't a dyslexic person still count as literate, if they are able to read (even if slowly) and write at the very basic level?

Doesn't a dyslexic person still count as literate, if they are able to read (even if slowly) and write at the very basic level?

I believe so.

If you say so. Having experienced it's full horror personally, and from the top percentiles both of school and student, I'd suggest instead it's excellent evidence for why one should not replace Oxbridge professors with comprehensive school teachers as the heads of exam boards, or devalue grades so as to then claim the average school leaver is ten times better educated than they were a decade previous.

It is, regrettably, unacademic both in content and aspiration, with the resuls manifestly obvious in the standard of the average undergraduate.

Having experienced less of this 'horror' personally, and from the top percentiles both of school and student, I'd suggest that - if you're having problems in the British school system, it's probably more a reflection on what YOU are putting into it.

I was told I was dyslexic once, a long time ago. My handwriting is shit, but I can't think of anything else that would make me dyslexic. Do I post like a dyslexic?

They might've meant/said dyspraxic, which is all to do with motor skills and makes your handwriting suck. I've got it.

The British education system is a perfect real world example of 'you get out of it what you put in'. People who put in a little effort do pretty well by it. People who don't put in any effort tend to be less successful from it, and spend the rest of their lives bitching about how they were 'failed' by it.

Oh come on. It is a pretty shit system. It really does fail to provide a decent level of secondary education to the general population.

And if by "do pretty well by it" you are talking about financial success, well that has very little to do with education in the first place. (Despite what teachers like to claim).

I will admit, as far as its primary purpose goes - keeping the unemployment numbers down in the 17-25 age group -, it's done pretty well. But that's about it.

I have a friend who has slight dyslexia.
He can write and read as good as anyone.

Oh come on. It is a pretty shit system. It really does fail to provide a decent level of secondary education to the general population.

And if by "do pretty well by it" you are talking about financial success, well that has very little to do with education in the first place. (Despite what teachers like to claim).

I will admit, as far as its primary purpose goes - keeping the unemployment numbers down in the 17-25 age group -, it's done pretty well. But that's about it.

Here in the US, many people are under the broad illusion that a high school diploma makes some difference.

Actually, over the lifetime of a worker, if you don't have a college degree, the best money you'll make in dollars adjusted for inflation is when you're 18 years old - it will be all downhill from there.

The EEOC figured this out when doing some modeling in the 1990s, and promptly sat on it - it was crystal clear proof that unless you plan to FINISH college, you're not going to help your earnings by staying in school until you're 18.

Here in the US, many people are under the broad illusion that a high school diploma makes some difference.

Actually, over the lifetime of a worker, if you don't have a college degree, the best money you'll make in dollars adjusted for inflation is when you're 18 years old - it will be all downhill from there.

The EEOC figured this out when doing some modeling in the 1990s, and promptly sat on it - it was crystal clear proof that unless you plan to FINISH college, you're not going to help your earnings by staying in school until you're 18.

Yah. The college thing has now been reconsidered also. Oversupply I would expect.

I've no doubt that getting some type of technical degree may put a wage floor under earnings in some categories. But the assertion that education really is a guarantor of financial success (outside of the Washington DC special economic zone, and those days are numbered in any case) is ridiculous. At most there was a passing correlation in the aftermath of WWII. That's it.

Actually, from a purely financial analysis perspective, education is a terrible investment. Complete shit.

Of course, if you root around a bit - which most people cannot be bothered to do - you'll find that the US is actually a 'full employment' nation. That is, the government is obliged to keep unemployment below certain levels.

It explains a lot, when you think about it.

The DNA is going to picket Graham Stringer's house. What's the DNA, you ask? That's the National Dyslexic Association.

And their credo is..."Dyslexic's Untie!"

And yep, it's a real disorder...

Oh come on. It is a pretty shit system. It really does fail to provide a decent level of secondary education to the general population.


I disagree. It offers a decent level of secondary education, which not everyone maximises the use of.

That's not so much a failing in the actual education system, as evidence of the fact that a lot of people will choose to be ignorant... and will then blame others for it.


And if by "do pretty well by it" you are talking about financial success,


Nope. I mean in terms of available eduacation. I measure that in terms of knowing stuff and being able to do stuff. Neither of which necessarily equates to money.


...well that has very little to do with education in the first place. (Despite what teachers like to claim).


Agreed. Which is why I wasn't talking about money.


I will admit, as far as its primary purpose goes - keeping the unemployment numbers down in the 17-25 age group -, it's done pretty well. But that's about it.

It's 'primary purpose' is offering education, basically to whatever level people feel they can follow it.

I disagree. It offers a decent level of secondary education, which not everyone maximises the use of.

That's not so much a failing in the actual education system, as evidence of the fact that a lot of people will choose to be ignorant... and will then blame others for it.

These are teenagers, so that is to be expected. You have to take it almost as read that the majority of people when they are that age tend not to be very self-motivated or have the experience to make good judgments about stuff like this. It really should be up to the system to motivate them, for much the same reasons as they are not allowed to vote, drive or drink. The vast majority of teachers just mail it in however.

That aside, I'd disagree that it's even capable of offering a thorough secondary education. The teachers just aren't up to it, and it is designed around the woefully inadequate o'level system. The entire thing is loosely modeled on the old grammar schools, which themselves were loosely modeled on a university track system. It's just not an appropriate basis for a general education because it's focus always tends ultimately to admission to tertiary institutions. It ends up concentrating too much on mastering what is ultimately a very limited skill set, rather than providing an actual education per se.

Nope. I mean in terms of available eduacation. I measure that in terms of knowing stuff and being able to do stuff. Neither of which necessarily equates to money.

Well it's a total failure in that respect there too. All a UK secondary tries to prepare you for really is admission to further education. It's like a huge scholastic aptitude test.

It's 'primary purpose' is offering education, basically to whatever level people feel they can follow it.

The reason it was made general was exactly to hide unemployment. If it was still optional after twelve years old I would agree. But its become a matter of statistical convenience since Harold Wilson's time.

I'm not saying any other countries are better or worse. Just that it insofar as secondary education in the UK is concerned it is easy to see that it doesn't do what it says on the tin.

Of course, not all schools are bad. Just the vast majority.

These are teenagers, so that is to be expected. You have to take it almost as read that the majority of people when they are that age tend not to be very self-motivated or have the experience to make good judgments about stuff like this.


So - it's a failing in the school-attendee, not the school. We agree.


It really should be up to the system to motivate them, for much the same reasons as they are not allowed to vote, drive or drink.


You mean, the law should dictate? It does, doesn't it?

You can't make someone learn. Just attend.


The vast majority of teachers just mail it in however.

That aside, I'd disagree that it's even capable of offering a thorough secondary education. The teachers just aren't up to it, and it is designed around the woefully inadequate o'level system. The entire thing is loosely modeled on the old grammar schools, which themselves were loosely modeled on a university track system. It's just not an appropriate basis for a general education because it's focus always tends ultimately to admission to tertiary institutions.


I totally disagree. I think the way the examination system is set up, does aim largely towards further education, but you would have to be confusing everything ELSE with the exam system, to say that the entire mechanism was, thus, similarly affected.


It ends up concentrating too much on mastering what is ultimately a very limited skill set, rather than providing an actual education per se.


Again, I disagree. When I attended school, the underpinning was learnign HOW to learn, finding out how to FIND skills and knowledge. And that's reinforced by the general trend in examinations - away from 'what date did...' and more towards actual understanding.


Well it's a total failure in that respect there too. All a UK secondary tries to prepare you for really is admission to further education. It's like a huge scholastic aptitude test.


Again, I think you might be right with the EXAMINATION system. Employers don't care you got three B's and D.

But that's not what the system does, that's just how it's tested.


The reason it was made general was exactly to hide unemployment. If it was still optional after twelve years old I would agree.

That doesn't even make any sense.

Its definitely real, proven cases are too numerous to deny it...

however, Dyslexia, ADD, ADHD, etc...Are over diagnosed by parents, and educators who dont wish to place the blame on themselves...

Its definitely real, proven cases are too numerous to deny it...

however, Dyslexia, ADD, ADHD, etc...Are over diagnosed by parents, and educators who dont wish to place the blame on themselves...

What's the difference between ADD and ADHD? Is it just the hyperactivity or what?

What's the difference between ADD and ADHD?

What are you, dyslexic?

The difference is obviously an H.

Duh.

Well, some people have it, burt manry piple juset pertend too!

So - it's a failing in the school-attendee, not the school. We agree.



You mean, the law should dictate? It does, doesn't it?

You can't make someone learn. Just attend.

What goes on once they are actually forced to be bodily present could also be different. Pedagogy and such. Maybe it is time to once again revisit the idea of different schools with different curricula for different aptitude levels. Or maybe the overall curricula and its focus needs to be changed. Or, quite possibly, the 'mini-lecture + homework' model is at fault here for a substantial percentage of the student body.

Or, you can just resign yourself to the fact that 80% of those attending have no interest in the current format and won't avail themselves of it, in which case why make them attend in the first place. Especially since you know ahead of time that it is not doing them any good. After all, if you are prepared to wash your hands of the responsibility once they are physically in the building and put the onus on them, shouldn't they at least have a say in whether or not they have to go in the first place? (Unless there is some other reason to force their attendance).

I totally disagree. I think the way the examination system is set up, does aim largely towards further education, but you would have to be confusing everything ELSE with the exam system, to say that the entire mechanism was, thus, similarly affected.

Again, I disagree. When I attended school, the underpinning was learnign HOW to learn, finding out how to FIND skills and knowledge. And that's reinforced by the general trend in examinations - away from 'what date did...' and more towards actual understanding.

Again, I think you might be right with the EXAMINATION system. Employers don't care you got three B's and D.

But that's not what the system does, that's just how it's tested.

The only measure by which schools are monitored is examination success. While I don't disagree that there are many excellent schools within the system that have enthusiastic teachers, lashings of extra-curricula activities, outbound weekends and all that lovely stuff, it's not something that is measured by the government. Schools get ranked and ordered by pupils' attainment at GCSE, and little else. That's just the way it works. So naturally, schools very often focus on that and very little else. Even then, many of them are miserable failures even then.

Possibly you went to one of the schools that does the other stuff. I would suggest that your experience is not reflective of the system as a whole. You may have felt very different about this if you had gone to school in South Tyneside.

That doesn't even make any sense.

Sry. Drinking again. I am saying, if it was an optional system, I would agree that the focus was education. But since it is mandatory, it really mostly exists to keep people off the streets. General education is a secondary concern.

Dyslexia is real and I think It's very common but I don't think it's really right to call it a disease. I've had it, not all that seriously though, I did have a lot of trouble learning to read but I over came it. It's not just a bad spelling disease - Its more like unconscious transliteration of mental tokens. I still do it - I called my cat 'memory card' the other day because I was holding one. My mom always mixes up my name with my brothers. I go to the store and then forget what I intended to buy... Some people are like this - some people are not. Dyslexia is only a condition if you have a problem with it.

Sey, aixelsid si etiuq laer. Hguoth, ti nac netfo og decitonnu rof ynam sraey. Taht si ym lanosrep noinipo.

What goes on once they are actually forced to be bodily present could also be different. Pedagogy and such. Maybe it is time to once again revisit the idea of different schools with different curricula for different aptitude levels.


This, totally. Agree.


Or, you can just resign yourself to the fact that 80% of those attending have no interest in the current format and won't avail themselves of it, in which case why make them attend in the first place.


Because if you exclude, then you've excluded.

People are much less likely to suddenly 'turn-on' to education if they're not exposed to it.

Put them in the schools, they get exposed to it, some of them will use that... and they'll ALL have a better grounding if they have been running through the same 'basic training'.


Especially since you know ahead of time that it is not doing them any good. After all, if you are prepared to wash your hands of the responsibility once they are physically in the building and put the onus on them, shouldn't they at least have a say in whether or not they have to go in the first place?


No - because, as you pointed out, they're not (necessarily) capable of making a decision like that.

It's a shame you can't MAKE people learn - but you can make them be exposed to learning.


The only measure by which schools are monitored is examination success.


Not strictly true. It is the chief measure of school ranking, though.


While I don't disagree that there are many excellent schools within the system that have enthusiastic teachers, lashings of extra-curricula activities, outbound weekends and all that lovely stuff, it's not something that is measured by the government. Schools get ranked and ordered by pupils' attainment at GCSE, and little else. That's just the way it works. So naturally, schools very often focus on that and very little else. Even then, many of them are miserable failures even then.

Possibly you went to one of the schools that does the other stuff. I would suggest that your experience is not reflective of the system as a whole. You may have felt very different about this if you had gone to school in South Tyneside.


I actually went to an overcrowded city school 'down-south', and to one of the remaining grammar schools. I've seen both 'ends of the spectrum' so to speak.


Sry. Drinking again.


Ah. :) Dashed unfair for people to be drinking while I'm at work.


I am saying, if it was an optional system, I would agree that the focus was education. But since it is mandatory, it really mostly exists to keep people off the streets. General education is a secondary concern.

But these 12 year olds wouldn't be working anyway.. .at school or otherwise. And (unless it's changed), schooling is optional from 16 onwards, right?

They might've meant/said dyspraxic, which is all to do with motor skills and makes your handwriting suck. I've got it.

Hmm, thing is, I play guitar and piano quite well, and I'm guessing they require motor skills.